Sunday, 29 November 2015

Nitish Kumar going the RSS way!

"I never expected Nitish Kumar to go the RSS way!” Banwarilal said in an angry voice while entering my chamber and sat in the front chair.

Banwarilal is a good friend of mine, who is a typical self-made activist. He always has his own peculiar logics and some of which are very genuine. He doesn't have too many supporters. Most of the times he comes to me just to express his anger as I am his only audience. (Unfortunately I had to oblige him always for friendships sake.)

"What happened man! Only a few days ago you had left Modi camp to join Nitish camp?", I asked coolly.
Banwarilal in an annoying voice said, "Don't mock me! You know why I became anti-RSS!"
Banwarilal had turned anti-RSS and anti-BJP after the beef ban had been imposed in some of the BJP ruled states. He has a clear view that nobody should decide what to eat and what not to. He is also critical of Khaps for the same reason as the khaps dictate what to wear and what not; even preventing girls from using mobile phone etc and his logics are most of the times genuine. I was really surprised on why he had suddenly become critical of Nitish?

He started saying, "You know, I am always for the fundamental freedom. I never accept anyone's moral policing to impose bans,"

"But what Nitish did to you man?" I again asked.
"Don't you know? Nitish is banning liquor from 1st April 2016?" He said looking into my face.
I said, "So what?"  I was still unable to get his point.

He said with an uneasy but angry expression on his face, "Who is Nitish to decide what one will drink or not drink? Isn't it an attack on our fundamental rights to freedom of choice? How can he become a moral police?"
I then understood his point and the sense of activism in him.
I tried to explain to him by saying, "Look my friend. In any case alcohol is bad for health. It was a pre-election promise made by Nitish. Hence it was his obligation to fulfill it. Anyways you don't drink alcohol, so what's your problem?"

"The Point is not whether I drink or not," He argued.

"The point is who is he to decide in a free democracy what a person drinks or not. It's the right of the individual whether he drinks water, juice or alcohol. Further you said it was his election promise, but how come I didn't know about it?" He further added.

"What would have happened if you knew about it?" I asked.
"Then I wouldn't have voted for him" He answered plainly.
I was really left speechless for that moment. Then I asked, "Do you really think that your one vote could have prevented him from becoming the chief minister?"
"No, I am not saying that," He explained.

"But at least I wouldn't have had that feeling of guilt, which I have today."

I shook my head helplessly. He stood up and said, "You will never understand my true activist emotions. Anyways I can't excuse Nitish for going the RSS way."

And then he then left my chamber.


In today's situation it's very difficult to find a village where people remain united. During my last vacation I visited such a village to which one of my friends belongs. The village in fact is part of an old town having a NAC (Notified Area Council). Most people of the village are rich farmers. Many houses even have air conditioners installed with electricity available round the clock.

It is also unique that no thief had ever entered into that village. Local political parties always gave this village utmost importance and if there was any grievance of anybody from the village, such grievance was in fact redressed with lightening speed by concerned government department or even by the politicians.

Every evening the villagers met at the village pandal (a meeting place). During this meeting minor day to day disputes among villagers were amicably solved so that there should be no lingering enmity between anybody. Bi-weekly, generally local politicians, government authorities and other responsible people were invited to the village for discussions on various issues of the village mostly on development of the village.

I had heard about these things earlier, thus I was in fact very curious to see this village. Such an ideal smart village is always an example for the country. So during these vacations I visited this village, where my friend very happily welcomed me. We first toured the entire village where I saw that the roads were in an excellent condition and cleanliness was unparalleled. The NAC sweepers never missed cleaning the village. The schools were also in an excellent condition and had full strength of teachers. In nutshell, this village is really the smartest village in the World, as I felt.
My friend said that all this became possible due to the unity among the villagers. "If you have unity, even God has to come down to address your problems'. My friend said in a philosophical tone. I had to agree with him and started thinking why other villagers always complain against authorities for poor services without maintaining unity among them?

When my friend was showing me his entire house, I noticed that they were using an electric heater (not induction cooker) for cooking, although a gas stove too was available. I asked my friend why didn't they use an induction cooker, which consumes less electricity in comparison to a heater? His answer really surprised me.

He said that it doesn't matter how much electricity we consume, as we have to pay the minimum charge. To further clarify, he showed me a secret switch which they used to cutoff the meter line, once the meter registered the minimum units. That meant that the meter is bypassed for balance use of electricity. I was really shocked.

"How can you do this?" I asked.

"Do you know if there is a checking, you will be penalized heavily apart from being embarrassed in such a smart village."

"Don't worry my friend," he answered.

"The same system is used by every villager here, and regarding checking, who can dare to go checking in this village? Everyone knows how we are bypassing the meter. In fact the electric department taught us to how to bypass the meter."
I was really speechless for the moment. Then I asked, "Why then do you keep LPG connection?"
"Well it's for emergency situations when there is an unavoidable load shedding," he confidently answered.

"Additionally such connection is beneficial to us financially too," he said further.
"How?” I asked.

"It's (DBT) Direct Benefit Transfer. We earn some extra money in that scheme," he said.
"But DBT is really not intended to allow anyone getting unwanted benefits," I asked with utter disbelief.

He smiled like a winner and then said,"You know, we are smart people, we know the ways and means to take maximum benefits from any scheme. In the LPG case we give our account books to an agent, who sells the gas cylinders to whomsoever he wants at whatever charges. The direct cash transfer of the subsidy comes into our account the moment the cylinder is sold from our account. Yes the agent sends a cylinder whenever we need it, without any delay and at par with the government subsidized rate."

"You and your co-villagers are really great, what a unity to utilize smartness in a negative direction?," I expressed in a humorous tone.

"What's negative in it man?," he said in an angry tone.
"Point is simple, unity and smartness should always be used to observe better citizenship. How can you use them to loot national property so blatantly in the name of unity and smartness?," I questioned.

My friend remained silent for a moment and then said, "See, all the stakes holders of this nation are indulged in looting in some way or another. Had we are not united, these authorities would have looted us like they are looting other villages."
"Looting?" I wanted to interject.

"I use the term looting just to symbolize all sorts of illegality, such as asking for bribes, favoring someone for same interest etc. Even when you vote, you vote for cash or kind. Politicians make money, so do the bureaucrats. Whose money is being looted? It's ours, the common people. That's why we decided to take back something. What's wrong in it?" he replied.

I preferred not to continue with the debate any further. He definitely had a point, but should it be called smart?

One thing is for sure, you may implement whatever system to check loot, but people will keep finding ways to defeat that system. That's really unfortunate. PM Modi must think seriously before dreaming of smart villages and smart cities!

Grand congregation of parties at Nitish Kumar oath taking ceremony - Is Nitish Kumar the next prime ministerial candidate or it's too early to judge?

After a landslide victory Nitish Kumar took oath for the fifth time as chief minister of Bihar on 20th November 2015 with pomp and show at the Gandhi Maidan in Patna. Leaders of various parties, including a few chief ministers (all non-BJP) and party heads graced the occasion of his oath taking in presence of thousands of people.

In the VIP guest stands, it appeared that dire political opponents of the BJP were sharing stage with a very victorious body language. Mamata Banerjee was seen with left leaders D.Raja and Sitaram Yechury. Arvind Kejriwal was seen hugging Lalu Prasad Yadav. The wide range of politicians' congregation appeared to be a rare political unity to mark the occasion and why not? After all, this is one rare occasion where everybody celebrated the electoral defeat of Narendra Modi, who one year ago appeared to be invincible.

Will this political unity last for long or say till 2019? I think it would be too early to judge. It was really unimaginable to see the Left and the TMC on the same side. Leaders of SP and the BSP didn't attend the oath taking ceremony, but did send out their good wishes. Some talks were going on as to whether the SP and the BSP will become a part of the Mahagathbandhan for the upcoming UP elections in 2017, but the BSP ruled out any such possibility.

Whether this event becomes an important occasion for laying the foundation stone for a formidable non-BJP alliance (read anti-Modi alliance) will become clear only after the five assembly elections of 2016 and the two assembly elections of 2017.

However the existence of this alliance is a good sign, as a united opposition will make the ruling BJP more accountable and keep it at its toes for taking necessary and quick steps for development. In a democracy a strong opposition is always required to provide checks and balances on the ruling party. Interestingly, everyone claimed in the run up to the 2014 general elections that Modi was a dividing agent, where as Modi in fact proved as a catalyst for uniting sworn enemies. RJD and the JDU locked horns for around 21 years but have now become bosom friends.
Former chief minister Jammu & Kashmir Farooq Abdullah said that Nitish was a prime ministerial candidate and the same has also been stated by the JDU leader K.C.Tyagi. In fact, if one honestly asses, he will find that only Nitish Kumar carries a persona that can challenge the cult personality of Narendra Modi.

So should we consider Nitish Kumar as a strong challenger to brand Modi? I think it's also too early to predict. Nitish has to perform first. It should be noted that although Nitish Kumar led the Mahagathbandhan to a landslide victory, Nitish himself has got a lesser mandate this time than what he got in 2010. His 71 JDU seats are inconsequential without Lalu's 80 seats. When Nitish was in the NDA he had a free hand, whereas this time he will be under Lalu's pressure. This pressure became clearly visible from day one, when the results of Bihar elections were declared and Lalu's RJD finished as the single largest party with 80 seats.
During the Bihar elections Nitish was questioned, that although his record as the chief minister of the state was excellent, if he won this time will he be able to control Lalu's influence? Nitish clarified that if he became the CM, he would ensure good governance without coming under any influence.

In his ministry Lalu's two sons have not only been inducted as cabinet ministers, but Lalu's younger son Tejaswi Yadav has been made the deputy chief minister. This shows Lalu's influence and stamp of authority in the new Bihar government. Nobody questions Lalu, as even earlier he had made Rabri Devi, his wife the chief minister of Bihar. Had this been a purely RJD government, Lalu would have inducted his entire clan into the cabinet. But why did Nitish Kumar allow this to happen? Inducting ministers from coalition partners can be understood, as a coalition government comes with its own compulsions, but why did he allow a first timer as a deputy chief minister? Was it the public mandate?

Many have also questioned Tejashwi Yadav's qualifications and credentials. My understanding is that a class 9 dropout (not even a graduate) is not appropriate material for becoming a minister or a deputy chief minister. Merit doesn't necessarily harp on educational qualifications, although educational qualification helps one to be meritorious. But what's the achievement of Tejashwi Yadav? Is he not just the son of Lalu Yadav? Okay, dynasty politics is nothing new in Indian polity, but then one has to work to prove his credibility before staking claim for a post of great responsibility. Rahul Gandhi is the dynastic heir of the Congress, but even after 10 years in active politics, he has yet not been made the party president. Rajiv Gandhi too was a dynastic heir, but when he became the prime minister of India, he had a lot of achievements at the personal level, Indira Gandhi too proved her credentials by serving as the minister of Information and Broadcasting in the Nehru government before becoming prime minister of India.

Here, Nitish Kumar could have asked Lalu Prasad Yadav to let both his sons to remain MLAs for a year or two, before being inducted into the cabinet. But it appears that Nitish has no say in front of Lalu Prasad Yadav. Even in the oath taking ceremony, one could note that although it was Nitish Kumar's swearing-in, the event looked more like the throne transfer of Lalu Prasad Yadav to his heirs.
Thus the future of the grand alliance mostly depends on how Nitish Kumar performs in Bihar. This would be an acid test for Nitish Kumar as till date he has never worked under pressure as the chief minister. Let's wish Nitish Kumar all the best!

Post Paris attacks, Hate crime against Muslims in Britain spiked by 300%: Why British media, activists silent?

During Narendra Modi's recent UK tour, British media especially BBC questioned Indian PM Narendra Modi about the allegations of rising intolerance in India when PM Modi and British PM David Cameroon were making joint statement. Such questions definitely made Indian Prime Minister bit uncomfortable although he managed to answer them invoking both Gandhi and Buddha.

Apart from this some activists under banner of Awaaz organization too carried out protest march against Narendra Modi and posted posters like 'Modi is not welcome'. Earlier Anish Kapoor a Padma Shree recipient during UPA rule (2009) wrote a column for BBC in which he had said India is ruled by Hindu Taliban.

Back in India our self claimed intellectuals patted British media as well as the protesters citing them as free and responsible media as well as the protesters being champions of humanity. It's another thing that Modi through his speech in front of 70000 strong Indian origin British citizens in Wembly stadium presented real India, which is bigger than TV screens and newspaper columns.
It's interesting to note that post Paris attacks, there is 300 per cent spike in Islamophobic hate crime in the UK, according to a report published in The Independent. British Muslims suffered more than 100 racial attacks after Paris was attacked by the terrorists, according to a report submitted to British government.

The figures compiled by the 'Tell Mama' helpline shows that victims are Muslim girls and women aged from 14 to 45 in traditional Islamic dress, where as the attackers are white males aged from 15 to 35. The actual figures could be much more as victims are frightened to lodge complaint with Police. Interestingly the reported attacks happened at public places including buses and trains. More shockingly when these Muslims were attacked, no one came to their rescue or to console them.

Now a question to British media, what is your opinion about this public display of blatant intolerance in UK? Mr. Anish Kapoor, is British too ruled by Taliban Christians? Where is Awaaz organization? Why there is no protest march?

Back home my question to intellectuals, where is your voice against silence of so called free and humane British media? Why no question is asked to people like Anish Kapoor? Why no awards are returns against these racial abuses?

Point is simple, the definition of intolerance by self claimed Indian intellectuals, self claimed free British media and people like Anish Kapoor is different from its dictionary meaning. This is selective one way intolerance against rise of Modi as a persona. Such intolerance is driven by acute Modi-phobia.
Duality in character as well as attitude always have a short life and sure to be exposed anyway. I don't think common people of India will ever fall in traps of such intolerant intellectuals and media. Fact is India is as tolerant as it was in the past spanning to Vedic era.

Tolerance is the main stay of India that makes diversity and pluralism to grow here unbounded. Nobody can create a smoke screen of intolerance citing facts selectively or joining some stray incidents. It would be better that such people refrain from tarnishing the image of India.

Who created ISIS terrorists, the 'psychopathic monsters'?

US President Barack Obama on 16th November 2015 (three days after the Terror Attack in Parish) said that Muslim community has to think about how we make sure that children are not being infected with this twisted notion that somehow they can kill innocent people and that is justified by religion.

Addressing a press conference in Turkey, the US President said Muslims around the world -- religious leaders, political leaders, ordinary people -- have to ask very serious questions about how did these extremist ideologies take root, even if it's only affecting a very small fraction of the population. It is real and it is dangerous. And it has built up over time, and with social media it has now accelerated.

"And I think there have been times where there has not been enough push back against extremism. There's been pushback -- there are some who say, well, we don't believe in violence, but are not as willing to challenge some of the extremist thoughts or rationales for why Muslims feel oppressed. And I think those ideas have to be challenged," Obama added, according to a report published on

Anyone who read above will agree that Obama is speaking sense and it's a timely suggestion to which Muslim community should follow. But question remains who created Islamic State monster? Will the terror end if ISIS is finished? The real answer is no, the terror is not going to end even after the end of ISIS because America itself is somehow responsible for the creation of brutal terrorists. Let me give a brief account of how America created these monsters with the help of Saudi Arab, Kuwait and Qatar.

To understand the Middle East, one needs to look into the history particularly after World War-II. Iran is the second largest Muslim country in the region, which was a moderate one and against fundamentalism and extremism. Iran was invaded by the UK and Russia, both America's ally during WW-II, but somehow the relation with America remained positive.

Iran also had very good relation with Israel and was among some initial countries to recognize Israel as a sovereign country. For petro-interest America conducted a coup in Iran in 1953 and overthrew Prime Minister Mossadeq and installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the ruler of Iran. Since then America nearly looted the petro-wealth of Persian Gulf literally making Shah a puppet. This created anti-American sentiments in Iran and finally in 1979 Shah was overthrown by Khamenei. From this point America lost Iran as a friend.

That's why America started strengthening its relations with Saudi Arab for the sake of not only its petro-dollar interests but also against Russian influence particularly on Afghanistan. Saudi Arab is the originator and follower of Wahhabism, which interprets Islam in a very conservative and fundamentalist manner. This Wahhabism is said to be creating community of intolerants and right wing Muslims.

America in fact helped this Wahhabism to spread to Pakistan so as to create Taliban to fight against Russia. Pakistan while creating Al-Qaida and Taliban also created Lashkar-e-Taiba (L-e-T) to attack India. In the meantime Saudi Arab had other plans. Saudi Arab always finds Iraq, Syria, and Libya as obstructions in the way of spreading of Wahhabism. No doubts dictators ruled in Iraq, Libya or even Syria, but extremism was never allowed in these countries. These are liberal and moderate countries that rejected Wahhabism.

Thus Saudi Arabia wanted these dictators to fall so that the Wahhabism can be spread in the entire Middle East. USA followed Saudi Arab's way and removed Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. In the mean time Tunisia and Egypt too saw regime change and made perfect pitch for spread of Wahhabism. The only remaining dictator (as USA and Saudi Arab say) remained is Bashar Al Assad, the President of Syria. To remove him both the USA and Saudi Arab funded, equipped and trained the fundamentalist group brainwashed with Wahhabism. Even it is said that Baghdadi was in in a US jail and he was specially sent to Syria to lead this rebel group i.e. ISIS.

But this rebel group became independent of both the US and Saudi Arab influence seeing lot of petro-dollar because of Oil reserves in Syria. It established Islamic State and tried to expand its Caliphate first towards Iraq and then proposed to half of the World. The conspiracy to overthrow Assad by the US and Saudi Arab resulted into creation of a monster called ISIS.

You would be surprised that American companies are still lifting oil in ISIS occupied areas and pay ten dollar per barrel to ISIS, then smuggle them into Turkey and sell it in black market.

The comments of Azam Khan & Mani Shankar Aiyer on Paris attack are anything but secular!!

Sometimes I feel that the 'Indian secular industry' must be acknowledged as the eighth wonder of the world because of its inexplicable logics. When International Yoga Day was celebrated in 177 countries including Muslim countries which follow Shariat laws, Indian secular industry defined Yoga as a Hindu practice which can't be imposed on Indian Muslims. To explain further they said that both Om and Surya Namaskar are anti-Muslim. Om in fact is considered as a sacred sound, mostly meaning an affirmation or acknowledgement. In some cases it's defined as 'Atman' and' inner soul of self'.

Not going into details, it can be said that people also bear their name as 'Om'. Thus calling a particular person by his name Om (for example Om Prakash) is not imposition of Hindu practice but using it in Yoga becomes communal. Similarly what does 'Surya Namaskar' mean? On translation in Islamic terms it means 'Salaam to the Sun'. However the Indian secular industry termed it as one of the worshipping rituals of Hindus.

The above expression of mine is a personal observation on how Indian secular industry tries to play divisive role in alienating the Indian minority community from the majority community, stoking wrong interpretations just for petty vote bank politics. But this time they have gone beyond limits justifying even terror. UP cabinet minister Azam Khan described the Paris attack as a reaction to an action, where as Mani Shankar Aiyar justified the Paris terror attack saying that the western countries must end Islam-phobia.

What it means? Aren't both playing obnoxiously to the gallery of Indian Muslims, provoking them to take up arms in case they feel that they are being discriminated? Aren't indirectly they justifying all the terrorist acts inside as well as outside India? Both Mani Shankar Aiyar and Azam Khan are habitual offenders. Aiyar was earlier too involved in commenting over the Charlie Hebdo terror act, citing it as a backlash by the Muslim community.

Indian Muslims totally reject terror acts, be it from ISIS or from any other organization. Notable Muslim scholars' time and again have appeared in press and TV studios reiterating that Islam is a religion of peace and it doesn't endorse terrorism of any kind. India is home to around 18 crore Muslims, but are the least radicalized community compared to other nations. There are some radical youths who have joined different terror groups, but then such radical/fringe thinking can be found across all religions and communities. No religion or community endorses such fringe elements.

Since 1947 both Hindu and Muslim communities have clashed with each other in several riots (all are in fact due to political conspiracies) yet both communities took ample steps not to radicalize their youth. That's why India has a special status in the world.

Mani Shankar Aiyar and Azam Khan should refrain from behaving like fringe elements that exist in both communities, because one of them is a former union minister and another is a present cabinet minister of largest state of India.

So, should they be featuring on the same page as Owaisi, Sakshi Maharaj, Yogi Adityanath, Sadhvi Prachi, or Akbaruddin? Will the Congress and Samajwadi Party take action against them or simply ignore it by just distancing themselves from their comments in the name of self defined secularism? If yes, then on what ground can they question the BJP for the outrageous remarks of their motor mouth fringe mindset leaders?

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Paris 13/11: Will the menace of terror ever end?

The terrorist attack in Paris on 13th November that killed 130 people is no doubt a brutal incident and rightly condemned by the world. Terrorism is no more a local menace but rather a dangerous global phenomenon from which no country is untouched. In all terror acts if counted, the death toll would be more than that of both World Wars combined.

In the ongoing G-20 summit, terrorism became the main point of discussion. It is believed that the World leaders that represent more than 2/3rd of the global population are putting their heads into finding a solution to check this menace called ISIS. But the point is, whether there can be a unanimous way out or not.

Someone rightly said that terrorism grows by harping on differences of nations in defining terrorism. For example let us take the case of ISIS. Who created it? If someone goes deeply into it, the United States shall emerge as the real father to this menace. America finished Saddam Husain for its ego and as part of its petro-policy, leaving a vacuum in the region.

The majority of the Shias started ruling Iraq, resulting in the Sunnis (who comprises 40% of Iraq's population and very influential community) to rebel. All the former commanders of Saddam Hussain formed their own army to attack the Shias in Iraq. America then turned against the Syrian ruler Assad. USA then helped the rebels of Syria through training and equipping them with advanced weapons. 

These rebels further split into many other outfits including the ISIS. The ISIS chief Baghdadi was under US custody earlier. Why America let him go and head the ISIS? It is something America would have to answer. The point is simple; America's Middle East policy created demons like the ISIS, and It's not limited to Middle East only. Even in Africa there are a number of terrorist outfits including Boko Haram, that are a result of wrong policies of western countries.

Even now the western countries headed by America have a dual policy in countering terrorism. A simple example will show how they see two terrorist acts differently. The 13/11 in Paris shocked and saddened the entire world. Starting from America to all European countries considered it as the most brutal act ever after World War II. But the same consideration was never made to 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Forget about Mumbai, no western country has taken seriously the terrorist act that took place in Beirut, Lebanon on 12th November (a day before Paris attack) that killed 40 innocents. If one closely scrutinizes, almost every day a terrorist attack is carried out by terrorist organizations in some part of the world, resulting in deaths of innocent people.

You can't fight with terrorism distinguishing one from another as good terror or bad terror. Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister is repeatedly telling the world that defining terrorism is required unequivocally and to set up a world body to take action, not only against the terrorist organizations but also against those who fund and support these outfits.

But will the world body learn lessons? I am afraid, that they won't. They will still see different terrorist acts through different spectacles. That's why no one is hopeful that this terror menace will end in the near future. The ISIS may be destroyed by the western powers, but then another terror outfit will emerge to take its place and this saga will continue forever!

Congress is playing divisive politics through Tipu Sultan Jayanti

One will always wonder how the term secular is defined in Indian polity. The true definition of 'Secular' is 'no relation with religion'. But in Indian context the term 'secular' is always defined in connection with a religion (read Muslim). Being pro-Muslim is considered as secular by self claimed secular flag bearers. In the name of secular mostly theses Indian secular Industries play minority appeasement policy conveniently for just petty political interests. They don't care if it results into a communal divide or increases discomfort among majority.

The fresh example is Karnataka government's decision to observe Tipu Sultan Jayanti. One would wonder why Congress government was so desperate for this. Was there any demand from any community or even from minority community? Why there is an urgency to observe Tipu Sulatan Jayanti after around 300 years of Tipu Sultan's existence in History? Karnataka Chief Minister earlier quoted that he is ready to eat beef only to appease beef eating minority community although Congress party's legendary leader Mahatma Gandhi staunchly opposed cow slaughter and beef eating. Well for petty political interests Congress can stoop to any level.

Tipu Sultan might be a symbol of resistance to British rule.  But that doesn't make him secular or a freedom fighter. In fact tagging as nationalist or freedom fighter to any King be it Hindu or Muslim is ridiculous, for simple reasons that no King ever fights any war against anybody for freedom of people. The only intent of such war is to establish or strengthen monarchial rule of self. In the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 (what the British call it) Mangal Pandey and his colleagues dared to face British might to ensure religious ethics. However, later this movement was hijacked by Hindu and Muslim Kings/monarchs just to get back their kingdom from British. None fought for general public. None thought of giving independence to common public. Even during 1947, whenIndiaattained independence, many Kingly states declared their independence just for their monarchy sake. It was only Sardar Patel's effort which made common public of those Kingly states to get real freedom. (First freedom from British and then freedom from Kings/Nizams/Monarchs)

Thus acknowledging any King/Monarch/Sultan as freedom fighter or nationalist is simply ridiculous. Tipu Sutan is a historical figure and so is Sivaji like many others. Everyone has good qualities and bad qualities. In that era it was a state policy of conversion. Destroying places of faith and instilling fear. You can't blame them as that was the prevailing practice. That's why let's leave the historians to judge the characters of such historical characters.
But Karnataka Congress government is blind enough to judge Tipu Sultan just in order to appease the minority. It was so desperate that it even decided to observe Tipu  Jayanti on November 10, whereas history says that Tipu's birth date is November 20. 

Question is why Karnataka government decided to observe this controversial Tipu Jayanti when there was absolutely no demand? Why this Congress government suddenly wanted to stoke a communal conflict that has already killed two people? Is there a greater conspiracy?

One can guess that Congress is playing its communal card very tactfully. First Kalburgi was killed in Karnataka which resulted in protests of intolerance by self proclaimed intellectuals who were later on hijacked by Congress.Karnataka government has failed to nab the killers of Kalburgi till date but both intellectuals and Congress chief have ignored the fact. Now through Tipu Jayanti they have created a communal divide just to blame Hindus as well as the BJP. The real target is the five state elections coming up in 2016. Karnataka is now the laboratory of Congress's vested secular experiments. It can go to any extent to create communal divide.

Will the self proclaimed intellectuals ask some serious questions to Congress chief Sonia Gandhi? Or their duties are merely confined to hating Narendra Modi?

Engaging with Indian Diaspora during foreign tours is Modi's important foreign policy

Narendra Modi has undertaken a 3-day visit to United Kingdom, which is to be followed by a two-day visit to Turkey. As usual conforming to Modi's style, there was a grand welcome by UK's Prime Minister and on 13thNovember. Modi addressed a 70,000 strong Indian Diaspora at the Wembley stadium. Indian news channels have already deputed their senior journalists/correspondents to cover this visit.
The hype of Modi's visit is very much visible there despite BJP's Bihar loss. Yes like any other country, there are some critics also, who displayed 'Modi not welcome'. But in a democracy such oppositions are always there, it is to be seen how Narendra Modi converts even this small scale opposition into an opportunity.

However my point is something different. All political opponents are very critical of Modi's frequent visits. Some even call him the NRI Prime Minister. Rahul Gandhi said post Bihar election results that Modi should focus in governance instead of carrying out foreign tours.
Here one thing to be noted is that most of his political opponents are very critical of Narendra Modi's style of addressing the Indian Diaspora than his visits. No one can complain that Modi is on a vacation during his foreign visits; rather everyone is assured that he is serving national interest over there.

Earlier Congress was of the opinion that BJP is mobilizing crowds for Modi's address on foreign soil. They even went to the extent that Indian crowds were airlifted from India to Madison Square Garden to present Modi as a rock star. No Indian Prime Minister has ever created such euphoria among NRIs. Some even asked that why Modi is involving the Indian Diaspora in his foreign visits? Will they vote for Modi in India? This article is meant to prove why Modi's involvement with the Indian Diaspora is very important in the context of national interest.
It's a well known fact that people from all over world live in the United States. Similarly it's also a fact that Indians are found living in almost all the countries of the world. In many countries Indians have a sizable population, capable enough to influence politics of those countries.
Internal politics is largely guided by domestic politics particularly in America, Europe and Australia etc. In America there are typical lobbies that work in the interest of the countries they are engaged for. Both Israel and China have very strong lobbies that are managed purely by money power. Even Pakistan had a strong lobby in America before 9/11. However that lobby became ineffective post 9/11 because of suspicion of terrorism.

India never had a lobby in any country. It doesn't have huge sums of money to spend on creating such lobbies nor did it ever find supporters in most countries that would do something positive for India. That's where Modi has innovated the way to unite the Indian Diaspora in such countries, who would work as a lobby for India. Narendra Modi realized the power of Indian Diaspora and thus started using them to the countries benefit.

In 2014 at the Madison Square Garden, not only people of Indian origin, but many American Congressmen and senators too attended PM Modi's address. Did those senators/Congressmen come to listen to Modi? Not at all. Rather they came there just to impress the Indian Diaspora, who was to vote for them.

Just see the recent Canadian elections. It is the people from Indian Diaspora on whose votes Justin Trudeau of the liberal party came to Power in 2015 elections. During UK elections too Prime Minsiter David Cameroon addressed many rallies particularly for Indian Diaspora, just to get their votes. In some rallies he also promised that he will ensure Narendra Modi's visit to UK as early as possible, if he gets elected again. That means the Indian Prime Minister became an election topic in UK general elections. See the result. A conservative party got a majority in UK elections for the first time after 1992. Isn't it the strength of Indian Diaspora?

In the upcoming American elections of 2016, will also see many issues of Indian interest, as those will be referred to get votes from Indian Americans. Donald Trump, who is already a probable candidate, openly supports India while accusing Pakistan as a terrorist country.

That's exactly the reason why Narendra Modi is so serious about engaging the Indian Diaspora. Because this is the most important Indian Diaspora who will work as a lobby not only to improve the relations of India with their adopted country but also influence the policy of their adopted country towards India.

Thus Indian public as well as the opponents of BJP must realize that Narendra Modi is doing a very good job for national interest while he is abroad. He is not holidaying over there. If his acts are criticized for petty political reason, then I would say that for those people politics has became more important than national interest.

Salman Khurshid-Mani Shankar Aiyar's anti-India remarks in Pakistan: Why the top Congress leadership silent?

In democracy it's common that opposition parties sometimes oppose for the sake of being in opposition, while claiming that they are supporters of constructive opposition. However opposition is always considered healthy in a democratic set up even if the oppositions are made purely for the sake of opposing.
But what if opposition starts hating the ruling party and become so intolerant of the Prime Minister that they decide to go against Indian interests and that on enemy's soil? Doesn't it appear unbelievable? But yes it's true. Indian National Congress has stooped to such a low level. In an act of intolerance against PM Narendra Modi, its senior leaders have indulged in anti-national acts while touring Pakistan, a country which is a known sponsor of terrorism in India.

Salman Khurshid, the former Union external affairs minister during his Pakistan visit last week criticized Indian government while holding it responsible for obstructing the peace talks. He said Pakistan is flying pigeons of peace whereasIndiais shooting them down. He further lauded Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as an apostle of peace and criticized Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Reportedly Khurshid, while speaking about Nawaz Sharif's presence at the swearing in ceremony of PM Modi, had said, "If you look back at the first face-to-face between our PMs, your PM took a brave, farsighted decision. What we said and did made things uncomfortable for Pakistan after the visit."

Does it look like a behavior of an ex-external affairs minister? Has he forgotten the fact ignoring the political differences, one should always represent 'India' in a foreign country? What's the message Khurshid wanted to give to the international community? That Pakistan is a peace seeker andIndiais a rough country! Does the hatred and intolerance towards Narendra Modi is so acute that he forgot his national duty and obligations being an Indian citizen?

Did Salman Khurshid forget that it was the same Nawaz Sharif under whose regime the Kargil attack happened while backstabbing former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's good will gesture through Lahore his Yatra? Hadn't then Pakistani army mutilated Indian soldiers' dead bodies? Are ceasefire violations not happening under Nawaz Sharif's rule?
How could Khurshid forget recent Udhampur and Gurudaspur attacks by Pakistan sponsored terrorists? Did he also forget that the same Nawaz Sharif referred former Indian Prime MinisterManmohan Singh, in whose government he was MEA, as 'Dehati Aurat'?
Another senior Congress leader and former Union minister Mani Shankar Aiyar has even gone a step ahead to Salman Khurshid.

In an interview to Pakistan's Duniya TV, Aiyar , while responding to anchor's question on what should be done to resolve issues betweenIndiaand Pakistan, said that bring the Congress government in power and remove PM Narendra Modi. He added that there is no other way. When the Pak TV anchor told Aiyar that this can be done by his party (Congress) only, Aiyar said that they would do it and asked the anchor to wait till that time.
How Pakistan can help you in defeating Narendra Modi? What has happened to you Mr. Aiyar ? Are you all right?

The question is why the Congress is silent over the controversial statements of their senior leaders that have embarrassed the country? The party has distanced itself from Khurshid's and Aiyar's comments but it is not looking serious enough to take action against them for their serious anti-national acts.
Thus an obvious question arises, whether the top bosses in the Congress also endorsing these anti-national deeds of their leaders. Does it mean that the Congress Party is so intolerant of Narendra Modi that they have started endorsing anti-India activities?

In last night TV debates the Congress spokespersons were defending both of their senior leaders while giving irrelevant logics. The Congress chief Sonia Gandhi and it's Vice-President Rahul Gandhi are maintaining mysterious silence over what these two leaders have said despite the fact that they are in favour of Prime Minister's counter comment on every statement made by any BJP leader, which they consider inappropriate.